Sovereign Network Homes (202322205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322205

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

23 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the general condition of the property and the landlord’s handling of repairs.
The Ombudsman will also investigate:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. The landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow.
On 17 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord because her front door was letting in a draught. On 15 December she contacted it to say that she was concerned about asbestos in the porch, as there were holes in the porch ceiling and she thought asbestos could be escaping.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 22 December 2022 and adjusted the front door. She reported a draught again on 5 January 2023, and on 9 January a contractor established that the door could not be adjusted anymore and a new door was needed. Measurements for this were taken on 17 January.
The resident reported a damp patch in her bedroom on 16 January 2023. A repair was needed to the guttering, however scaffolding was not in place in time for an appointment on 15 February and the repair had to be rescheduled.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about a recent inspection, however it has not provided information about when this inspection was carried out. It said that the ceiling below the porch would be removed and the fibres tested. The leaking gutter would be repaired when roofing work was carried out on 23 March, which the landlord’s records show was completed on that date. It also said the leaking overflow was to be inspected on 6 April.
In this letter the landlord said that the bathroom tiling would be sealed on 14 April 2023, and its records show this was completed on 12 April. An operative was booked for 4 June to replace the porch ceiling, after which a light would be fitted. It confirmed that the front door was on order, which its records show was fitted on 18 April, and that it would look to make adjustments to the rear door and carry out repointing at the back of the property.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It confirmed the timescales it had given in its previous letter and apologised for some delays.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 23 May 2023 to escalate the complaint. They set out the following issues:
1. The front door had only been replaced after many visits from the repairs team, and the draught had made it difficult to keep the property warm and dry.
2. She was unable to use her bedroom whilst there was a damp patch on the ceiling and had instead slept on the sofa in the lounge.
3. The issues with the porch were not fully resolved and the landlord should have checked for asbestos before she moved in.
4. There was condensation on windows and the back door. Not all of the windows were checked by the landlord’s contractor and she thinks a new back door is needed.
5. When she moved in there was a leak when the washing machine was fitted and she had to change a fitting for a new gas cooker to be fitted. She arranged for these to be fixed herself and requested reimbursement of these costs.
6. She had expected the property to have been decorated and have carpets laid when she moved in, but this was not the case.
7. The resident was finding it difficult getting in and out of the bath and needed a wet room.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 August 2023, in which it acknowledged the front door may not have been properly sealed and offered £150 compensation to cover any additional heating expense. It said that work to the porch and bathroom had been booked in and that it had found no fault with the windows.
The resident was not happy with this response and on 12 February 2024, her representative contacted this Service and asked us to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
In the resident’s representative’s email to this Service on 12 February 2024, they said that the resident wanted a wet room installed, and that she was unhappy that she is not entitled to a new kitchen until 2025. No evidence has been seen that these issues were raised to the landlord as part of the complaint, or that it has had the opportunity to formally respond to these issues.
Whilst the resident’s representative did let the landlord know that the resident was having difficulty getting in and out of the bath in their email of 23 May 2023, this was an initial enquiry to the landlord, not a complaint, as no decision had been made about a wet room at this time. The resident will need to raise these issues with the landlord if she remains unhappy with these issues.
This investigation has also not looked into issues with the internal/wardrobe doors and bathroom ceiling that were raised in the resident’s original complaint, as she indicated in her escalation request to the landlord that she was satisfied with how these issues had been resolved.
When the resident’s representative escalated her complaint to stage 2 they raised concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in. They said that she had expected the property to be decorated when she moved in. They also said that there were no carpets left down, which they understood to be common practice. This Service has seen no evidence that these issues were raised as part of the original complaint. These issues were also not raised as part of the complaint brought to this Service, so these have not been investigated.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations for repairs to the property. It is responsible for all external doors and window frames, walls and ceilings, and the roof. Its repairs policy sets out its timescales for carrying out repairs. All responsive repairs, apart from emergencies should be carried out within 28 calendar days on a ‘right first time basis’.

Front door

The earliest record this Service has seen of the resident reporting a problem with the front door was on 17 November 2022, however this record does state that there had been a previous issue with the door. At this time, the resident reported that the door was letting in a draught. The landlord attended to adjust the door on 22 December, which was outside of the timescale set out and its policy. Also taking into account that this was in November and December, during winter, it was unreasonable for the landlord to take this long to attend to fix this.
On 5 January 2023 the resident again told the landlord that the front door was draughty. It attended on 9 January, when it established that the door could not be adjusted any further and as there were large gaps at the hinges, a new door was required. Measurements were taken for a new door on 17 January.
In its stage 1 response of 5 April 2023 the landlord said it was expecting delivery of the new door in the next week. The new door was fitted on 18 April. In the resident’s escalation request, she said that there had been previous issues with the door’s handle being loose and it had taken many visits by the repairs team for the landlord to decide to replace the door.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not comment on the need for multiple visits, however it did acknowledge that the door may not have been fully sealed for some time and offered £150 to compensate the resident for any additional heating costs.
Whilst this Service appreciates that a new door was needed, which would have taken some time to be manufactured, the landlord could have attended the property more quickly when problems were reported, and been more proactive in deciding to replace the door.

Roof

The resident told the landlord that there was a large damp patch on her bedroom ceiling on 16 January 2023. The landlord scheduled work for 15 February, however scaffolding was not in place and the work could not be carried out. The work was then completed on 23 March which was not in line with the timescale of 28 days.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged there was a delay and said it had provided feedback about ensuring scaffolding is in place ready for work to start.
In her escalation request, the resident said that she was unable to sleep in the bedroom during that period because the damp was affecting her health. In its stage 2 response it said that photos showed that the damage to the ceiling was minimal and so there was no reason for the bedroom not to be used. However, it is not clear whether it took these photos, or whether the resident provided these, and there is no evidence of the landlord visiting the property to carry out a damp and mould survey.
The landlord told this service on 15 April 2024 that there should have been a vulnerability flag in place, but it was set up with an expiry date in error and had not been in place whilst these issues were ongoing. This Service has not been made aware what the specific vulnerabilities are, however it is clear that the resident has health concerns that were not taken into consideration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs issue, in particular in relation to damp.

Porch

The landlord’s empty homes standard says that when a home is empty it will check the asbestos register and remove any asbestos containing materials if they are in poor condition.
The resident moved into the property on 19 September 2022 and raised concerns to the landlord about asbestos in the porch on 15 December. She said there were some holes in the porch ceiling and she was concerned that asbestos could be escaping through these.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had found that there may be asbestos in the ceiling and that it had contacted a specialist to arrange removal of the ceiling and asbestos testing. The landlord has not provided evidence that an asbestos survey and testing was subsequently carried out. In its stage 2 response it just said that it was not obliged to remove the asbestos unless it was disturbed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 January 2024 to say that it needed to consider whether there is any asbestos present in the porch, and then follow up work would need to be approved.
The landlord’s policy stipulates that asbestos checks should be carried out during void periods, and asbestos should be removed if it is damaged. The landlord has not evidenced that it carried out any asbestos checks before the resident moved in, and as of 19 January 2024, the asbestos check it promised the resident it its stage 1 response was still outstanding. This Service has seen no evidence that this asbestos survey has ever been carried out.
The landlord’s repairs log indicates that work was carried out to the porch ceiling on 17 August 2023, without an asbestos survey being done. The landlord has failed to comply with its obligations in regards to asbestos.

Windows/back door

The resident raised a problem with the back door on 22 March 2023, telling the landlord that water was getting in. The landlord’s records show that this job was sent to the wrong contractor initially, and was not completed until 22 June, which was outside the 28 timescale for responsive repairs.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the windows had been inspected and were working fine, however the resident said in her escalation request that it had only checked 3 windows. The landlord has not provided a report or any contractor comments to show what was checked.
Given that the resident had reported multiple problems with draughty doors and windows, as well as water getting into the property in multiple places, it would have been proportionate for the landlord to arrange a full damp and condensation inspection, however there is no evidence that it did this.

Gas fitting and kitchen leak

In the escalation request of 23 May 2023, the resident’s representative said that when she moved in she had to pay for someone to carry out repairs in her kitchen in order for her to have her washing machine and gas cooker fitted. The landlord said that these issues were not reported to it and so it was not given the opportunity to repair these. The resident has not suggested that she did report these issues before getting them repaired privately, and there is no evidence to show that she did.
Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident may have arranged the repairs privately as she thought this would be quicker, It would not be reasonable for this Service to tell the landlord to reimburse her for jobs that it was not given the opportunity to carry out. It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to decline reimbursement for this work.

Summary of repair issues

The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property. The landlord did not handle repairs to the property in a timely manner, and has not demonstrated that it has carried out surveys where necessary. It did not take the residents vulnerabilities into consideration and she had to live in damp and draughty conditions during the coldest part of the year.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £550, made up of:
1. £150 to recognise the impact of the delay to the roof repair.
2. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by it failing to carry out an asbestos survey, despite promising to do so.
3. £150 to recognise its failures in how it handled problems with the back door and windows.
This brings the total compensation for the repairs to £700.
The following orders have also been made:
1. The landlord to carry out an asbestos survey, if it has not already, and provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
2. The landlord to carry out a damp and condensation survey and provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
3. If these surveys identify required repairs, a schedule of work to be provided to the resident and this Service.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to agree a resolution at stage 1 within 10 working days, but will let the resident know if it needs more time. At stage 2 it says it will provide an outcome within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the original complaint raised by the resident, and it is not clear from its records when this was first raised. A contact note from 17 January 2023 refers to escalating a complaint to stage 2, however the landlord has not provided a copy of a stage 1 response that pre-dates this, despite this Service requesting this information.
A stage 1 response was sent by the landlord on 5 April 2023, more than 2 months after the contact note about escalation, which indicates that it did not escalate the complaint appropriately or respond within a reasonable timeframe, or in line with its policy.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 23 May 2023 to ask for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord did not send a stage 2 response until 1 August, 49 working days later, and has provided no evidence that it kept the resident, or her representative, updated during this time. This represented an unreasonable delay in responding to the complaint and was not in line with the timeframe set out in its policy.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It has failed to demonstrate that it escalated the complaint correctly in January 2023 and it failed to respond to the complaint in line with its policy at either stage.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise the impact of its complaint handling failures on her.

Knowledge and information management

Effective knowledge and information management plays a vital role in landlord’s ability to manage both repairs and complaints effectively.
The landlord has failed to provide complete records in relation to both the repairs and its complaint handling. It said that an asbestos survey was to take place and that it had inspected windows at the property, but no reports have been provided to support that these surveys took place.
Its records indicate an earlier complaint being logged, but it has failed to provide a copy of earlier complaint responses, or of the resident’s original complaint. It has also acknowledged that it incorrectly added an expiry date to a vulnerability flag applied to the resident’s records, meaning that this flag did not continue to be present, and therefore her vulnerabilities were not taken into consideration whilst the repairs issues and complaint were ongoing.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information management as it has failed to keep complete records and update the resident’s records where appropriate.
An order has been made for the landlord to self-assess using the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the general condition of the property and repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its knowledge and information management.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £950, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, made up of:
1. £700 for its handling of repairs.
2. £250 for its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord to:
1. Self-assess using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord should produce a report setting out the findings and learnings from the review, and provide a copy of this to this Service.
2. Carry out an asbestos survey, if it has not already, and provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
3. Carry out a damp and condensation survey and provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
4. If these surveys identify required repairs, a schedule of work to be provided to the resident and this Service.